OECM Aircraft

[Meiktila]

In game how are aircraft like the EA-6 and EF-111 best used? Some are much bigger boats like the EC-130H.

Do they go in with land strikes as support, keep their distance, fly a support track? Is there any way to see how effective their jamming actually is?

Any help, tips, info would be great.

[willpope697]

I like to keep the small OECM aircraft slightly in front of my strike package on the bearing between the radar/SAM and the strike package. As for the larger aircraft I keep them behind the strike but again on the same bearing.
This seems to do the trick most the time for me.

[Rory Noonan]

For strikes I keep the OECM aircraft just behind (few nm) the fighter screen. They are most effective when used along the same bearing to the target as the strike aircraft. Once I get close enough (100nm or so) I set the OECM aircraft to loiter speed to provide continuous coverage along the line of bearing while the strike aircraft ingress. The OECM aircraft is the second last to leave, followed by the fighter sweep. From memory forward facing and rear facing jamming works the best, while side lobe jamming is the least effective.

For 'area' OECM, I simply put up a support mission between the relevant hostile radars and the things I want to protect/obscure.

You won't get any clear indication of how effective the jamming is, which matches reality. However if you play in editor mode you can switch to the enemy side and see what they see.

[Sardaukar]

As said by others, bearing is the most important aspect with jamming. One is not doing much good if e.g. jammer is 90 degrees angle from aircrafts being supported.

[mikkey]

Some interesting information about electronic warfare are in Baloogan Highlights Electronic Warfare

[ExNusquam]

Depending on the threat radar, placing OECM offset from the aircraft they are protecting can be advantageous. You still can still get significant protection form the jammer, and if the bad guys have ESM/ELINT gear homing in on the jamming won't lead them to the strike package. This technique doesn't work particularly well against modern radars that have weak sidelobes.

[Meiktila]

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

The clear recommendation is for same bearing, although there are some database entries like the AN/ALQ-99F-V which says "360 degree azimuth coverage" which I wonder what exactly it means.

But what about positioning, should the jammer be in-between the threat and the assets it is protecting, like Will and apache85 mention, or does it also work from behind the assets?

ExNusquam can you clarify what about the threat radar would make offset advantageous and how do you identify such a situation?

[Gunner98]

I 'think' the answer to that one is the relative strength/quality of the jammer to any counter jamming and/or the quality of the radars your facing.

For example, an EF-111 (1970s tech) going up against an S-400 (1990s tech) has a very rough time so needs to be with or ahead of the strikers - not safe! Against an SA-2 (60's tech) it jams with ease and can be behind the strikers by a bit.

An EA-6B with 5 jammer pods is better than one with 3, but this is not a sure thing and I'm not sure how that works.

The multi-engine jammers are meant to be behind (Bear's, Compass Call).

If the bad guy has a jammer, you need one just to get target fix on many targets, so it should be used offensively. If the bad guy only has radars, its more of a defensive tool in the offensive role.

Takes a lot of plying about to get the right feel for it. I don't think I'm there yet..

B

[Lukeb]

Early Vietnam era jamming training video. This is a quite interesting video if you know nothing about jamming systems.

I recommend playing around in editor mode with different set ups to get an idea of what different generation equipment can do.

[Rory Noonan]

That's a great video, have watched it a few times. Periscope Films has other similar training videos dating back to WW2 that give an idea of basic tactical and strategic principles.

[ExNusquam]

ExNusquam can you clarify what about the threat radar would make offset advantageous and how do you identify such a situation?

As I said, if you're going up against an older radar system (think single digit FSU systems and their knock-offs), you can employ sidelobe jamming. Here's an explanation. Basically, if you look at the wiki graphic for sidelobe, you can see that RF emitters don't emit a perfectly focused beam, and don't receive exclusively on that beam, however any signal on that beam will be assumed to be on the main beam. This means you can jam the main beam even if you aren't under it. This mode of jamming is weaker than jamming directly on the main beam, and isn't effective against modern radars. Modern radars have additional receivers to detect sidelobe jamming, and electronically steered arrays have much more focused beams and therefore have extremely weak sidelobes.

As mentioned before, this is advantageous if you are working against someone that has FSU gear and an ELINT system that may detect your jammers. This allows you to stand your emitting platform (jammers) away from strikers/fighters/etc (50+ NM in extreme cases). This requires some testing in the editor to figure out angular offsets work well; for example a SPOON REST seems to have strong sidelobes at 25°/50°. I think baloogan's wiki has enough data that you can do the math on this, but it's down right now so I can't confirm.

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: Lukeb

Early Vietnam era jamming training video. This is a quite interesting video if you know nothing about jamming systems.

I recommend playing around in editor mode with different set ups to get an idea of what different generation equipment can do.

Great video. Describes surprisingly sophisticated technology from almost 55 years ago. One can only imagine what they can do now...

[Meiktila]

Thanks ExN. I'm using the editor now to switch side and get more of an idea as everyone suggested.

That video, really weird watching like, this info is good but is it ironical, like a spoof of 50/60s videos. No it's real but just feels that way.

[AdmiralSteve]

ORIGINAL: Meiktila

In game how are aircraft like the EA-6 and EF-111 best used? Some are much bigger boats like the EC-130H.

EA-6 (or any aircraft with HARM or equivalent load-out) I'll keep those on the nose of the formation and attack first prior to any TLAM, Tarus etc get launched. I like to use decoys (ADM-160's) launched from B-52's for F-16's prior to HARM's flying of the rails. EF-111 about the same but slightly behind escort aircraft of the era (F-15, F-16, etc). EC-130H I'll keep well behind the attack group as they are a prop aircraft, slow and not nearly as maneuverable as the EA-6 or EF-111

Do they go in with land strikes as support, keep their distance, fly a support track? Is there any way to see how effective their jamming actually is?

I keep them close to the escort aircraft but as stated before, if they have a HARM load-out, they go in first and active jammers. EC-130H I'd keep as far back as possible as they are very susceptible to SAM's. If you don't have any SAM's go up your tailpipe, then the ECM suite worked.[:D]

Any help, tips, info would be great.

[Tailhook]

With aircraft like the EC-130 do you still get best jamming on flying directly towards/away from the reciever, or can you get away with a parallel orbit? I've encountered Soviet jamming aircraft that seemed to fly parallel orbits in the back field that caused sufficient havoc on my sensors at range, especially regarding Sparrow shots. I'd like to return the favor against the Alamos.

[kevinkins]

without any experience or testing on my own, I don't think the Soviets would have better jamming. So if they are having a disruptive effect then set up a similar backfield and test it out. Without a few dry runs I would not go up against a modern Soviet SAM position. Took me a while to figure out the S-400. It costs (in simulated tax dollars) a lot to take them out. They burn through even direct face-to-face jamming eventually with enough time to save the quarterback's bacon. Without side testing it would have taken countless scenario replays to figure them out.

[wild_Willie2]

Yes, S400-800 systems are extremely difficult to jam, even so difficult that jamming, even at extreme range, is almost useless against them. The only practical defense I found against them is to fly below their radar horizon and launch A LOT of HARMS once you get within range..

[Gunner98]

I don't think the Soviets would have better jamming

Depending on the timeframe. Early to mid 90's the Russian jamming capability was fairly good compared to the US, it seems like the classic 'arms race' cat and mouse game with one side being better than the other for a few years until the counter-systems or methods catch up.

Today I think the S-400 system is the latest example and I'm sure there are smart people with sharp pencils figuring out the best way of fielding something to beat it.

B

[Tailhook]

It wasn't a case of the jammers being so good as Sparrows are bad. The launching aircraft can fire them and then have them immediately go blind. Kitty goes to Kamchatka demonstrates this really well.

[kevinkins]

Yes,typo,meant the S-400. I dealt with them so far by EC-130 jamming, MALD(B-52s) and ER JASSM(B-1s) cruise misses. The idea being to saturate the site simultaneously with electrons and flying metal (real and decoy). Kinda like an artillery time on target. Very expensive. It's an interesting puzzle to try to minimize the cost to take out one of those battalions. Stand off platforms and UAVs must be in the West's current thinking. Knowing their precise location is half the battle. Can they be tracked in peace time?